|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
This may be hard to believe, but sometimes I really do try to understand this whole moral high ground bullshit from a christian point of view. I really do. But the more I try, the more I find my head further up my ass.
Christians claim to have the moral high ground, yet they don't act like it at all. And to preemptively strike at the "not all christians are like that" comments, it requires at least the majority to keep striking down gay marriage from state to state. You can't tell me the majority of christians are loving, christ-like. And you can't tell me there is such a thing as the silent majority. When gay marriage are instituted via popular vote, then I'll back down on this. In the mean time, in my book christianity DOES NOT have the moral high ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Taz writes: in my book christianity DOES NOT have the moral high ground. I think that's been true since the OT was first penned...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
That would make Baby Jesus cry. I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party. Or, I like to think of Jesus like with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk! - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Taladega Nights rocks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Ricky Bobby!!! lol
- Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
One thing I will say:
A few years ago when gay marriage was being discussed in this forum, there were those who were insisting that marrying the person of your choice is not a fundamental right under US law. Judge Walker's decision (if I understand it correctly) in this case is that, yes, marrying the person of your choice is a fundamental right under US law and custom. Except in cases where the state can show a compelling interest in restricting that right, it is protected under the 14th Amendment. Therefore, since the proponents for Prop 8 failed to show a compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage, gays do have a fundamental right to marry. I'm bringing this up because it seems that a major argument (marriage not being a fundamental right) that some were using is invalidated, and I think it would be interesting to see the reaction of the anti-gay marriage crowd. Edited by Chiroptera, : "forum" instead of "thead" in the first paragraph To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Judge Walker's decision (if I understand it correctly) in this case is that, yes, marrying the person of your choice is a fundamental right under US law and custom. You are quite correct. In summary, these are the holdings of the opinion:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The California Constitution says that homosexuals can marry. Pastors licensed in California have to comply with the State. So now they will be legally obligate to do something that violates their religion. This is addressed in point 62 of Judge Walker's findings of fact:
62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples. a. In re Marriage Cases, 189 P3d at 451-452 ([A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.) (Citing Cal Const Art I, 4) b. Tr 194:24-196:21 (Cott: Civil law, not religious custom, is supreme in defining and regulating marriage in the United States.); c. Cal Fam Code 400, 420. Any couple foolish enough to want to compel a ceremony from an unwilling pastor would have an uphill legal battle, since that would involve challenging a (rather crucial, IMHO) finding of fact in the very decision that acknowledged their right to marry in the first place. Legally, they'd be sawing off the leg they were standing on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Down her in Florida, we had an amendment 2 which like Prop 8 in CA, banned gay marriages. Gays are also not allowed to adopt children but strangely enough they are allowed to be foster parents, at least for now. The two Republican canidates for Governor are now against even that and one, McCollum is calling for a ban on it!
I hope we can get a strong Democratic or independent canidate to keep Florida from sliding further into the past!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs An excellent provision. Thanks for finding the verbiage "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyro, no offense but are you still listening to those liars who lie right through their teeth for jesus? This pastors'-rights-are-violated bullshit have been bullshit ever since the beginning. Yet, here you are still repeating this bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Hyro, no offense but are you still listening to those liars who lie right through their teeth for jesus? This pastors'-rights-are-violated bullshit have been bullshit ever since the beginning. Yet, here you are still repeating this bullshit. If you'll go back and read what I've been writing for the last three pages, you'll see that Subbie cleared that issue up for me. Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals, I no longer have no objections, and haven't for several pages. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals But why should religious people be protected to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet no other person(s) or business would be protected in the same manner? Why does religion get a pass? And this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Aren't people protected?
Isn't it legal to not associate with a subset of folk? Are religions being treated any differently then individuals? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
But why should religious people be protected to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet no other person(s) or business would be protected in the same manner? Ask yourself the same question in reverse. If religion isn't allowed to dictate why homosexuals can or can't marry, why would/should the opposite be true? It's not right for religionists to say that homosexuals shouldn't marry in secular society (it's not their place), and by the same token it's not right for the state to dictate that a religion goes against its own beliefs. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024